Great Western Coffee Shop

Buried within FGW's consultation response on the RUS they say that they have proposed to DafT that the diesel-only sections of Reading-Redhill should be electrified using third rail to free seven Turbos sets for other uses - though whether there would be enough 319s around to cover this route as well, as FGW suggest, remains to be seen.

The text within the pdf seems to be locked, so I can't chop out the relevant chunk but if you're interested it's on page 4 of the response here http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/great%20western/consultation%20responses/f/first%20great%20western.pdf

Where there's a programmer, there's a way

Sounds sensible; Reading -> Gatwick used to be Reading -> Tonbridge, and they've put 3rd rail in on the Redhill to Tonbridge section already ...

Would make sense (although FGW might disagree) if the NDL is 3rd railed, to hand over operations to SWT.

Should happen. And extend 3rd rail to Sailesbuey and (eventually) Exeter while you are are at it. (non of this overhead wire nonsense for SWT).

Do the Marshlink & Uckfield lines and that's 3rd rail done and dusted! Freeing up 158s, 159s, 171s and 165s in the process.

Given the fact that most modern EMUs now have the capacility to run on both systems, any electrification west of Salisbury (and even Worting Jn) is highly likely to be overhead given the long established policy to restrict 3rd rail to infiill schemes.

Agree Marshlink Uckfield (Lewes) and NDL should be 3rd rail.

If third rail is extented from Worting to Salisbury then it also ought to be infilled from Redbridge/Eastleigh to Salisbury. That woukd give another electrified alternative route to Southamton for SWT when the route via Winchester or te3h tunnel is blocked.

That leaves Reading Basingstoke as the odd one out but I think 25KV to save running conducot rails through Reading Station.

Fill in wires between Salisbury Westbury to Bristol and Swindon coupled with GWML electricfication and you've got 158s to spare with an electric Cardiff Brighton service. Loco and coaches?

I think its fantastic you all spending tax payers money and keeping me in a job for the next 10 to 15 years  ;D

There was a study done a number of years ago that actually recommended that the Basingstoke to Exeter line should be electrified at 1500v DC using 25kV OLE.  This would save the need for an expensive DC/AC interface at Basingstoke, reduce the number of substations required on the route and allow for reliable +100mph operation conrail is limited to 100mph by the amount of power that can be provided and collected.  1500v DC is still an acceptable to the ORR as an electrification method.

The NDL electrification is do able with the addition of a small number of substations and possibly some addition rectifiers at some others, but its not on the CP4 list and I don't think its on the CP5 either FGW need to make a good business case for it the get higher priority than the current renewals and enhancements that are currently being planed on the existing third rail network

Despite FGW claiming it could be done at a fairly cheap price, I expect NR's own figure would be significantly higher - as with Merseryrail's thwarted ambitions to electrify Biston to Wrexham.

However, I like the idea of it, and it does slot in well with the electrification of the GWML.  Assuming there are enough Class 319's to go round (88 sets is a heck of a lot - even with a fair few heading up to the North West) then that would be a good way of releasing capacity for the suburban routes into Paddington.  Coupled with the bay at West Ealing to get those pesky Greenford's off of the main line and that would relieve the current strain significantly.  That being said it would still be several years away and not that long in advance of Crossrail, so would it be worth it for that reason alone?

It's just a suggestion, but I do quite like the idea of North Downs services from Reading being operated by Class 319's as the extra carriage would relieve overcrowding that already exists on some trains, and post GWML electrification would open up the possibility of one of the present 2tph on the Oxford to Paddington stopping service going through to Gatwick Airport instead.  Those trains are probably to be left stranded at Reading post-Crossrail, so if one went through to Gatwick and the other went through to Paddington calling at Twyford, Maidenhead and/or Slough that would solve the problem of what to do with those trains. 

The net result would be more through trains at Reading and a through service from Oxford and Didcot to Guildford and Gatwick Airport with the benefits that would bring. The new layout at Reading with its greater number of through platforms lends itself much better to through trains than terminating ones, and the reinstated underpass east of Reading will mean they could be signalled without conflicts.

The Crossrail / Reading team have been asked to do a feasibility study for an AC / DC electrification isolation interface at Reading to allow DC traction to use the north platforms accessed via the east under pass, these isolation interfaces are not simple or cheap to achieve, the one at Blackfires (all be it a two track railway) required eight rectifiers hence eight HV circuit breakers eight sets of DC switchgear and a complex contactor system to switch sections of the conrail in and out as the trains progress, even the other method of using 25kV isolation transformers is still complex

While waiting at Crowthorne I've noticed that the concrete sleepers there appear to have additional holes towards either end, as if in readiness for third rail insulators to be fitted. Is that possible? I'm assuming that third rail usually requires non-standard sleepers to be fitted, which is why installing it is expensive...?

They are standard sleepers for the "Southern", as the track renewal in the Crowthorne area would be a project for the track team based in the South they would specify their standard sleepers, also while the line is not on the immediate list for electrification sleepers and track has a life of 25 years which means the next time it is up for renewal would be in CP 8 or 9!

Also worth bearing in mind in relation to this that Network Rail is currently studying the idea of creating a Channel Tunnel freight route avoiding London by putting in a flyover at Redhill between the Tonbridge and Guildford lines. With Reading modified and GW electrification complete, there would presumably be a case for making such a route Class 92-operated throughout. The study was due to be wrapped up this month.

Main fly in the ointment is that a certain supermarket chain has an application in to build on part of the land at Redhill that a flyover would need.

Further information from 'thisissurreytoday (http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Train-line-derail-Tesco-s-town-centre-bid-Redhill/article-1426854-detail/article.html)'.

Bloody Tesco at it again.

Not being content with ruining Worcester's hope for a decent station (and not to mention the Gerrards Cross debacle) they now want to destroy a proposed line!

Why are they wanting to build a Tesco here anyway? I thought people in Surrey shopped at Waitrose....

Language, Timothy!  >:(

Appalling. Even if you did type it after the watershed! :D

At the AGM of the Reigate & Redhill Rail Users Association a few weeks ago, the local MP suggested that a watch is kept on the idea for a flyover - I took this to suggest that he would argue against it on grounds of noise and sight.

Putting in extra trains would need some considerable work on the signals on the North Downs line given that there only appear to a few traffic regulating ones (as opposed to signals protecting level crossings).  However, if this improved the headways and allowed the return of longer distance trains, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Isn't there a pretty long 35mph restriction for locomotive hauled trains up the hill from Chilworth?  I don't think there's anything over 70mph all the way.

They can build it, don't take long to knock down

The land required by Tesco isn't in railway ownership yet is it though? Although it is the obvious route for a bypass line, if NR think they need it, they should probably get their finger out and get the local authority to sort it. A new bit of railway won't just happen on its own...

Paul

Doesn't need the local authority to do it. If the NR report says the flyover is a sensible thing to do, DafT can just say it's in the national interest and slap a development ban on the land required.

Well done FGW for taking this up.

The problem seems to be that London must be a destination, if a service is to receive investment.

The Steer-Gleaves report on Crossrail rejected electrification past Maidenhead because Reading - Paddington passengers would use the 125's, ignoring the fact that Reading had more commuters in-bound than out-bound. Similarly, the Electrification RUS graded the ND (or Trans-Siberian as it used to be called when it was all stations to Tonbridge!) as Tier 3, ignoring the fact that it is an International Gateway Service, i.e. of the first priority. I've argued for this service at numerous RDA, CC, etc Enquiries but never had the civility of a rejection of the thesis.

No doubt the nettle of ac/dc change-over at Reading will need to be grasped one day but at present all that is needed is, I believe, 3 substations and 5 TPH's. Platforms 4a,b (and c one day) will do.

How is the Reading Spur - Reading New Jn line isolated at present?

OTC

The separation of ac / dc traction can be done in a number of ways the 2 used by NR are 25 kV isolation transformers typically 2 per track the isolation sections spread over about half a mile, track circuits are isolated by IBJs in both rails at a number of points along with complex earthing and voltage limiting devices between the 2 earth systems (the dc earth and the ac earth)

It isn't in the sense of ac dc electrification, usual practice in dc traction areas is to use ac track circuits and in ac areas to use dc track circuits as the GWML is not electrified at Reading immunisation can be achieved by the use of ac track circuits.

The isolation between ac and dc traction is not only for track circuit immunisation there are other problems such as stray traction return current that can cause the other form of traction current switchgear, transformers etc problems

I don't think we should worry too much about the DC/AC change over. Engineers like Electric train should have it well in hand by now.

Until recently the NL line 313s pans were up and down 3/4 times, depending if they put it up at Dalston going East, in one journey.

Also at Farringdon.

I wonder how many millions of times those changeovers occurred, without problems, over the course of the years.

In 1980 I almost moved to work with BRB electrification design office - one of the big cash-saving benefits of this core team and coherent railway operation was that they were using idle time on the current work programme to nip over the the East Coast and acquaint themselves with the structures and track layouts.  It was thus that a lot of routine and planned ciivils work was done with added detail to remove the need to rip out or change things 'when' the wires came along.  Now if this was planned in to the routine work on the North Downs line, any major sleeper renewals would use units with '3rd rail' mounting holes, and LC's would incorporate provision for rail side-guards.  Thus when the money to install the sub stations and 3rd rail itself comes available the time to deliver and disruption will be greatly reduced, as it may well be that most of the plain line (and possibly the switches), will already be fitted -out.  From the information already posted it does seem that this process is already rolling forward in the Crowthorne area

A further detail to consider for the EMU's ordered and the current uncertainties over new DMU's - the Class 365 Royal Mail EMU's are equipped for operating as 2-wire controlled sets hauled by any 2-wire locomotive.  So why can't we order new EMU's with this feature - after all the 390's have it to work with Class 57's when required/dewired.  The Redhill-Reigate shuttle set, which would appear to be a diagram with poor utilisation might instead operate a Redhill-Guildford diagram with an electro-diesel power option - this would offer 4 (or 3) coach Electrostars for the route and when the resources or conditions permit, the line would retain the EMU's and dispense with the diesel or ED locos.  The technology would allow Southern to eliminate their small DMU fleet and operate combined E Grinstead+Uckfield trains to release train paths between Oxted and London, and couple extra coaches on to the Ashford-Brighton services.  This could also apply for Reading to Guildford, using SWT EMU's (again 4 coaches replacing 2 or 3, and potentially running through to other destinations).

There is a strong precedent in this part of the world - Crompton (33) plus 4TC on Reading-Basingstoke and Bournemouth-Weymouth before the rails went that far West   

I propose that we get some preliminary checks on 2-wire - or are there some 365's mothballed which could be converted to passenger carrying vehicles - truly flexible with shoegear (currently u/s on many units) a 25KV pan and 2-wire with any suitable loco - ideally with a Deliner coupling conversion.

I assume you actually mean Royal Mail Class 325s - the 365s are FCC's Networker Express fleet.

Yep I knew it was wrong but had a mental block 3*5 on this.